Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00513/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00513/B Applicant : Mr Trevor Lee Glassey Proposal : Erection of an agricultural building Site Address : Field 434756 (Formerly 660) Ballamodha Straight Ballamodha Ballasalla Isle of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 21.06.2018 Site Visit : 21.06.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.07.2018 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The agricultural building hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.
Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.
C 3. The building must be used only for agricultural purposes.
Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.
Plans/Drawings/Information:
This decision relates to drawings 01, 02 and 03 all received on 16th May, 2018.
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00513/B Page 2 of 9
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Cooyrt Vane whose owners were afforded interested person status in the previous applications on this site.
__
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a field which lies on the eastern side of the Ballamodha Straight (A3) between existing properties Cooyrt Vane to the south (separated from the site by a field) and White Lodge, to the north (separated from the site by two larger fields which are also within the control of the applicant). The site has a frontage of around 40m and is 95m deep and towards the rear there is a planted hedge which runs parallel with the A3. Access to the site is from the east via a lane which runs parallel with the A3 as well as directly from the A3 through an existing field gate. The land which is owned by the applicant amounts to 8.6 acres at Ballamodha. A high tension electricity line runs through the site.
1.2 The applicant also owns field 430539 which sits to the north of the additional land owned by the applicant - referred to as "the Top Yard". This contains a number of buildings, two of which have permission for residential use (see planning history below) and the others agricultural buildings (see planning history).
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new building 13.6m by 9.1m and 5.7m high (similar to but larger than the building approved on the applicant's land to the north) towards the rear (eastern end) of the site. The building is proposed to be used as an animal shelter and will be finished in red brick to 2m high and timber boarding above that with a gated opening in the front elevation. The roof is to be finished in natural grey eternit profile fibre cement cladding.
2.2 The access to the building is already in place through PA 10/1699.
2.3 The applicant explains that he operates a smallholding from field 430539 and also uses field 434756 ("the Bottom Field"). He grazes his animals on both fields, moving them between the two sites along the rear lane. Silage for the animals is stored on the hardstanding in the Bottom Field which he transports to the Top Yard when needed. Manure and waste bedding materials are moved from the Top Yard to the Bottom Field where it is stored prior to disposal. There is an animal shelter in the Top Yard in which he houses animals in winter months. However, recent wet weather has resulted in this area being difficult for the animals where they had to be housed for longer periods than normal and in addition, his bull has to be housed separately from the cows. Photographs have been provided.
2.4 He explains that there is no space for an additional animal shelter or building in the Top Yard and a building in the Bottom Field would allow him to house animals there in the winder, avoiding the problems experienced in the Top Yard and reduce the number of vehicle movements between the two sites. He suggests that it would also provide an opportunity for the business to be expanded and income increased: this is the applicant's only income.
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00513/B Page 3 of 9
2.5 Previous unsuccessful attempts to build a structure here were met with objection from the owners of Cooyrt Vane, Fern Lea and Ballahaven and two of these properties have had similar buildings approved in more recent times - 17/01228/B and 16/00406/B. He is now encouraged that his proposal may be viewed more positively. Additional planting has been introduced around the area of the hardstanding which, when mature will provide additional screening.
2.6 Following a request for further information, Mr Glassey confirms that he owns all the land outlined in red and blue on the Location Plan. He obtained the land between the Top Yard and the Bottom Field in late 2008 after the first planning application for the erection of an agricultural building on the Bottom Field (08/00954/B) was submitted. In subsequent applications submitted on behalf of Mr Glassey for both the Top Yard and the Bottom Field, it was not made apparent to me that he had purchased the intervening land.
2.7 With regard to the field numbers, in making planning applications for the Bottom Field I always referred to Field 430660, but from 2010 onwards correspondence from the Department, and the Government website, refers to Field 434756 (Formally 660). With the present planning application the application refers to Field 434756 as they have presumed that the part of the field where the proposed building is to be situated is bounded by hedges to separate it from the pasture land, but is part of the field extending up to the Top Yard. When Mr Glassey refers to having 77 acres in his 2012 letter, he did not mean to say that he actually owned them but that he leased them from others. When asked to list these leaseholdings he mentioned 25 acres at The Rheast, Santon; land at Valley Views, Santon; and land at Shebeg, Ballamodha. He also mentioned that this year he had obtained a lease on 40 acres of land at Ballakew, St Marks, for the production of silage so that he would have feed for his animals during the winter months. Mr Glassey believes that he will be able to have the lease extended for future growing seasons.
2.8 In 2008 Mr Glassey applied for permission to erect an agricultural building on the Bottom Field site (08/00954/B), which was refused. He applied to erect a smaller sized unit on the site in 2012 because he thought this might have a better chance of obtaining approval as, in 2009, he had applied to erect an agricultural building on the Top Yard site (09/00160/B) which was refused, but an application later in 2009 for a smaller sized unit (09/01560/B) did obtain approval. Mr Glassey believes that the size of the agricultural building now proposed for the Bottom Field will better suit his plans for expanding his business in the future.
2.9 Mr Glassey currently has 23 cattle and 4 donkeys. Although he regularly handles horses, he only has the one horse at the moment. During the summer months the animals are out to pasture on the land that Mr Glassey owns or leases, but during the Winter months they are housed in the buildings at the Top Yard. As explained in the statement attached to the application form, this last Winter produced difficult operating conditions for Mr Glassey which is why he has applied for the agricultural building on the Bottom Field.
2.10 Mr Glassey intends to house donkeys and horses in the existing buildings in the Top Yard, along with the hay used for bedding all his animals, with the cattle being housed in the building proposed for the Bottom Field, along with the silage to feed all his animals. The size of the building proposed now is larger than that previously proposed as it will allow Mr Glassey to house more animals, bringing it up to the number he had in 2012, and generating more money for him as he currently has no other form of income. Mr Glassey would like to mention that, in his letter of 17th July 2012, the Agricultural Advisor, Chris Kneale, was supportive of his proposals.
PLANNING STATUS 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "white land", that is, not designated for development.
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00513/B Page 4 of 9
3.2 On the Area Plan for the South (2013) the site lies within an area of land not designated for development.
3.3 As such, the following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant in the consideration of the application:
General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
"(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry."
Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
Environment Policy 15: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.
Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.
Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape."
"4.5 Type D: Incised Slopes The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Incised Slopes Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the remote and rural character; the relatively sparse settlement pattern of traditional hamlets and scattered farm buildings; the network of sunken and enclosed rural roads; and the substantial hedgerows and sod banks dividing irregularly-shaped pastoral fields.
Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:-
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00513/B Page 5 of 9
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been a number of planning applications associated with the land referred to in this application.
4.2 On the application site there has been one for the development of an agricultural building. PA 08/00954/B proposed a building which was 9.1m by 18.4m and 5.7m high for the purposes of the storage of tractors (some vintage) and animals and feed and this was refused at appeal for the reason that the storage of vintage tractors was not a justifiable agricultural reason for setting aside the general policies against development in the countryside and whilst there was animal housing proposed the operation did not amount to a full time agricultural holding. Another application for the widening of the access and formation of hard standing area where the building is proposed was approved (PA 10/1699) and has been implemented.
4.3 More recently, 12/00688/B was submitted for the erection of an agricultural building in the same position as is now proposed, half the size of the 2008 application but two thirds of the size of the building currently proposed. This was refused by the Planning Committee on 20th August, 2012 for the following reason:
"The building would be a new structure isolated from the other farm buildings associated with this holding and at least one field away from other existing buildings. As such, the development would not comply with Environment Policy 15 which requires generally that new buildings should not be in isolated locations unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify this. The Planning Committee is not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances in this case: whilst it appreciates the benefit of isolation facilities on agricultural holdings, these do not need to be so far removed from the existing buildings as are proposed here.
The proposed building would result in a greater potential for nuisance to the occupants of Cooyrt Vane, Ballahaven and Fernlea through animals being grouped together in a single place. Whilst such proximity of private residential accommodation to farming activities can be acceptable, in this case, the building would be new and unassociated with existing agricultural structures and has been stated previously, unjustified at such a distance from the existing farm building group."
4.4 This was confirmed at appeal on 17th December, 2012 for more succinct versions of the reasons given initially.
4.5 17/00547/B - conversion of the small stone building adjacent to the A3, field 430539 to a dwelling - approved. During the consideration of this application, the following was discussed:
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00513/B Page 6 of 9
"2.5 He has clarified that the shed presently accommodates a vintage tractor which has been sold to someone and is awaiting their collection of it. The applicant is involved in the fattening of cattle which is undertaken in a field to the south of the site. He has had approval for two animal shelters one of which is not required for the operation currently being undertaken and can be used for the storage purposes for which the application building is used. He considers the site to be sufficiently well development not to warrant erecting more buildings without having a detrimental impact on the intended residential usage of part of the site and that if any further buildings are required, it would be more useful to have these in the southern field where the animals are kept."
4.6 There have been other applications for the development of land in the vicinity of this site, by the current applicant. These are as follows:
16/00176/B - conversion of the stable building approved under 07/02375/B to a dwelling - approved on appeal 13/91037/B - erection of tractor store, field 430539 - refused due to lack of agricultural justification 12/01694/B - erection of animal shelter, field 430539 - approved 09/01560/B - erection of animal shelter, field 430539, the Top Yard, permitted. This building is 9.2m by 9.1m and 5.7m to the ridge 07/02375/B - erection of stables and store - permitted - field 430539 07/02260/A - approval in principle for erection of a dwelling - refused, field 434756. This was alongside the Ballamodha Straight in the same field as the current application proposal. 06/0998/B - erection of a dormer bungalow - refused on appeal - field 430539 03/01565/B - conversion of agricultural building to tourist accommodation with extensions - refused on appeal - field 430539 03/00749/B - erection of extension to existing stables - Planning Committee declined to consider - field 430539 02/01393 - erection of agricultural building to provide hay store - refused at appeal - field 430539 02/01393/B - erection of agricultural building to provide hay store - refused on appeal - field 430539 01/02122/B - erection of agricultural building - refused on appeal - field 430539 01/00175/B - extension to stables to provide vehicle store and erection of new stables - refused on appeal - field 430539 00/00664/A - approval in principle for erection of dwelling - refused on appeal - field 430539 98/01352/B - erection of agricultural building (amendment to PA 98/0098) and creation of vehicular access - permitted - field 430539 98/00098/B - erection of agricultural building - permitted - field 430539 95/01636/B - erection of horse stables and creation of new access - permitted - field 430539 and 95/01170/A - approval in principle for erection of dwelling - refused on review - field 430539.
4.7 It is also relevant that planning approval was refused for the erection of a building 5m by 5.5m and 2.8m tall to the south of Ballahaven which lies to the south of this application site - 12/00693/B. This was to support a small horticultural unit but the inspector considered that there was insufficient agricultural justification for the building and it was considered a visual intrusion.
4.8 Planning approval has been granted for new agricultural buildings to the south of the application site: one is for stables adjacent to and in association with Cooyrt Vane (17/01228/B), another an agricultural building associated with Fern Lea (16/00406/B) and a third to the south of these - 14/00341/B. The former is sited immediately adjacent to the A3 and the latter two at the rear of the site, similar to the current application. All of the applications had a similar or smaller area of land supporting the proposal and the last
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00513/B Page 7 of 9
application referred to was in connection with an agricultural contracting business in addition to the management of the 5 acres of site.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection (30.05.18).
5.2 Highway Services comment that the building will be an animal shelter and located away from the public highway. The proposal should reduce the number of movements along the A3 and will not create any additional parking demand. They do not oppose the application (12.06.18).
5.3 Due to the previous objections to the application and the fact that a site visit was not made until after the statutory consultation period had expired and it had not been possible to check whether the site notice had been displayed, the owners of Ballahaven, Cooyrt Vane and Fern Lea were contacted by letter as none had written in at the expiry of the consultation period. The owner of Ballahaven telephoned the office and left a message to confirm that she has no objection to the application. No response has been received from the owner of Fern Lea.
5.4 The owners of Cooyrt Vane have submitted objections to the application (27.06.18). They query why the site has to be so close to existing houses and suggest that it could be moved up one field. They query whether the proposal complies with EP15 and ask what has changed since the last application. They suggest that their stables are for pet animals and the other buildings are further away than the proposed one and only contain machinery and do not have the potential disruption, noise and smell, vermin, flies and health risks that could come from 23 cattle and 4 donkeys and particularly as the applicant wishes to expand his business. They are further concerned that approval to this application could be the start of further buildings in the area.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue is whether there is agricultural need sufficient to offset the general presumption against development in the countryside and if so, whether the details of the proposal are acceptable in terms of visual impact and effect on those in nearby residential property and whether the proposal complies with the Strategic Plan guidance on the location of new buildings which should not be in exposed locations. The previous applications on the site are relevant and material to the determination of the application, as are the other applications in the fields to the south.
6.2 The proposal is similar to previous applications on the site and as such, if the application is considered acceptable, it should be demonstrated what has changed since that earlier decision to warrant a different decision.
6.3 The justification for the building relates to the applicant's organisation for the management and use of his land. He has buildings which are concentrated in the Top Yard and where there is limited space which has led to the intensification of that area for the animals which has resulted, in times of damp weather, of the conditions becoming less than ideal for the animals. This situation is the same as it was in 2012 but the applicant is clearly finding it more difficult to manage the site. Since 2012 permission has been granted for the conversion of two of the buildings on site to residential but this is not referred to by the applicant, as being a material justification for the current proposal.
6.4 Since the previous application, the vegetation around the area of the proposed building has matured, providing more of a visual screen from the highway and adjacent property.
6.5 Perhaps of most relevance is the applications which have been approved in the vicinity since that last decision. A number of buildings have been approved, some in a similar position relative to the highway, some closer, some associated with animals, some with machinery but
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00513/B Page 8 of 9
all with limited areas of supporting land. It is considered for this reason that the previous conclusion that the perceived lack of agricultural justification for the building and its visual impact were both sufficient to warrant refusal of the application, should be reconsidered. The proposal is considered so similar in impact and justification that neither of these reasons is considered to be a justification for the refusal of the application any longer. These decisions clearly did not have issue with the fact that these buildings are relatively remote and not in groups.
6.6 The concerns of those in Cooyrt Vane are understood: many people become concerned with the impact of agricultural activities on their living conditions. However, the keeping of animals is a lawful activity in the countryside and it is noted that stables have been approved right alongside Cooyrt Vane which will bring the permanent housing of animals, and associated impacts, immediately next to that property. The proposed building is around 75m from the closest part of Cooyrt Vane's curtilage and separated by a field. As such, it is not considered that the proposed building will result in an impact on the occupants of Cooyrt Vane such as to warrant refusal of the application for that reason. EP15 quite rightly concerns itself with the impact of proposed agricultural development on adjacent existing residential property, it is clear that this is where buildings are "close" which in this case it is not considered that it would be and it also states "although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape".
6.7 Whilst the Strategic Plan suggests that new buildings should not be in exposed locations, in order to address this, the building would need to be closer to Cooyrt Vane, which is unlikely to be welcome.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of EP15, would not have a harmful impact on the environment and is supported.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 30.07.2018
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00513/B Page 9 of 9
Signed : S Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report was required
YES/NO
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal